Computation–Communication Tradeoffs for Missing Multitagged Item Detection in RFID Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing item event detection is one of the most important radio-frequency identification (RFID)-enabled functions. Yet it is largely unaddressed how to fast and reliably detect missing item event in multitagged RFID systems where multiple tags are tagged on one item. The canonical methods can only solve tag-level detection problem where each item is associated with one tag, and applying them to detect the missing multitagged items would falsely alarm and is time inefficient. To bridge the gap, this article formulates and analyzes the missing multitagged item detection problem. Our key idea is to search the proper seeds so that the reader only needs to probe a subset of the tags each being selected from different items instead of the entire tag set for the missing item detection. By employing the computation-communication tradeoffs, we design two protocols named M2ID and M2ID+ that classifies the tags before the segmentation compared to the former to improve time efficiency. With the derived optimum parameters, our protocols can achieve up to$4\times$performance gain in terms of time efficiency compared with the state-of-the-art solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".